During the ongoing acrimonious electoral campaign the Gandhi family fell out with Priyanka accusing her cousin Varun going astray and betraying the family by being in the BJP - a political party that believes in divisive politics.

The
campaigns for the ongoing elections have since become too acrimonious
and bitter for ordinary citizens to stomach. Allegations,
insinuations, innuendos, et al, have been flying thick and fast
between the two major contending political parties, the Indian
National Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

In
Focus

In
the process, a war has broken out among the members of the “first
family” of the Congress. Priyanka Vadra, the daughter of Sonia
Gandhi, the first lady of the Congress, happened to say, seemingly
quite needlessly, that her cousin, Varun Gandhi son of her uncle
Sanjay Gandhi, had gone “astray” and “betrayed the family”,
presumably because of opting to be in the BJP, the party which is
fighting the Congress.

Varun
did not reciprocate the ‘compliment’ but said that the decency
displayed in not doing so, should not be taken as his “weakness”.
This led to a further spirited attack by Priyanka. She said it was an
“ideological war” and not “a family tea party” and,
presumably, attempted to convey that such an attack was par for the
course.

Although Priyanka did not
elaborate what she meant by “ideological war”, one presumes, the
term used embeds the age old semantic difference between the two
political parties on what are generally reckoned as “secularism”
and “communalism”. Come elections and these two words get bandied
around by all and sundry; those aligning with the Congress calling
themselves “secular” and condemning the BJP and its supporters as
“communal”.

One has been hearing these
two words with such frequency that it is now sickening to hear them
knowing, as one does, that neither the Congress is truly secular nor
the BJP wholly communal. The Congress now goes on to claim that it
alone can protect the unity of the country because of its “secular”
credentials whereas the BJP practices divisive policies on the basis
of religion. Thus the claim is while communal BJP divides people, the
secular Congress acts as a unifying force.

Before examining the claims
of the Congress it would, perhaps, be worthwhile to see what exactly
is meant by “secularism”. Secularism as it is understood in the
West generally means separation of government institutions and
officials from religious institutions and religious functionaries.
The state is thus neutral in matters that are religious, leaving
people to their own geniuses to decide for themselves in matters
relating to their faith. Again, secularism entails public activities
and decisions have to remain uninfluenced by religious beliefs and
practices.

The situation in India,
however, is quite different from Western “secularism”. While
India has no state religion its constitution requires equal treatment
of all religions and religious groups. In so far as laws are
concerned, though the Constitution required it under the Directive
Principles of State Policy, the State has so far been unable to
formulate and prescribe a “Uniform Civil Code” applicable to all
citizens regardless of their religious beliefs or faith.

Personal Laws, therefore,
take precedence when in conflict with the laws enacted by the
Parliament or state legislatures. Hence, while all religious groups
like Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, etc. are governed by
inherited or enacted civil and criminal laws, only Muslims are
governed by Sharia-based Muslim Personal Law. Thus, despite being in
conflict with the laws in existence to the contrary, the State
recognises child-marriages, polygamy, extra-judicial divorces and
unequal laws of inheritance among Muslims. To that extent the Indian
State is not secular though declared a “Secular Republic” by an
amendment of the Constitution in 1976 as it discriminates in the
vital matter of applicability of laws to the Muslim community as
against all others. The Constitution was largely framed by
Congressmen and the Congress, therefore, cannot really claim to be
the repository of all secular virtues.

This is further corroborated
by several subsequent political developments. Since the very first
General Elections the Congress looked at the Muslim community as a
“vote bank”, a term that later got wide currency. Many political
analysts have gone to the extent of even suggesting that the Congress
did not want transfer of population at the time of the Partition as
it knew it could use the remaining Muslim population as a secure
source of support. That may or may not be true but whenever a
Congress government was cornered by Muslims and their clergy it
succumbed to their pressures.

Shah Bano’s case, among
many others, is an example where the government of Rajiv Gandhi,
Priyanka’s father, enacted a law to nullify a reasonable Apex Court
verdict only to deny alimony to a divorced Muslim wife of 44 years
under the Muslim Personal Law. In plain language, it was the State
that intervened to allow continuance of discriminatory practices
against Muslim women.

Almost at every election the
Congressmen went out to woo the Muslims. It would approach the Muslim
Clergy, especially Shahi Imam of Delhi Jama Masjid who would issue
his fiat to all Muslims to vote for it. Not long ago the Congress-led
UPA government had mooted a proposal to carve out a Muslim quota of
5% from 27% reservations applicable to Other Backward Castes. It also
attempted a census of Muslims in the defence forces. During the
current election campaign Sonia Gandhi went to a mosque to talk to
Muslim voters without ever trying to do likewise with the voters of
other communities. Quite apparently, the secular claim of the
Congress is a big fraud on the people. One wonders how Priyanka
missed it, seemingly, more intelligent than her brother as she
appears to be.

The Congress alleges BJP of
“Communalism”, one of the definitions of which is strong
allegiance to one’s ethnic group rather than to society. If one
looks at BJP it would seem to snugly fit the definition. It, without
being hypocritical, wears its affiliation with Hindu religion on its
sleeves. Deviating from the definition, it, however, claims that it
owes allegiance to the entire Indian society.

Its current main
protagonist, Narendra Modi, while asserting that he observes Hindu
religion and its traditions, has affirmed his respect for all other
religions and their traditions. He also declared recently that he
would not be asking for votes on the basis of religion. His
assertions would seem to be true as during his 12-year rule in
Gujarat not a single communal riot between Hindus and Muslims has
taken place.

Harping on 2002 Gujarat
riots, the Congress has used several vicious epithets for him –
from “merchant of death” to “killer with blood-soaked hands”,
“liar” and so on. In fact, while Modi has been cleared of all
charges by the Apex Court-appointed investigators for the 2002 riots,
the Congress’s memory lapses in respect of yesteryears when under
its long rule in Gujarat Hindu-Muslim riots took place almost every
other year. Curiously, its blinkered vision does not allow it to see
the Godhra massacre of Hindus which precipitated the 2002 riots. It
also does not acknowledge its failure to control the 1984 Sikh
killings in Delhi.

Understandably, in electoral
fights accusations and counter-accusations are common. But,
regardless of Priyanka and her Congress Party say, voters need to
know that none of those in the fray is either really “secular” or
entirely “communal”. The voters have to choose only those who are
capable of delivering a better life to them.

Editorial NOTE: This article is categorized under
Opinion Section. The views expressed in this article are solely
those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of
merinews.com. In case you have a opposing view, please click
here to share the same in the comments section.